benlehman

Reading a post on a different forum, something clicked for me from a sentence fragment.

rationalization of the logic behind one very small rule

Doesn't parse for me. The rules of a game are not rational or irrational, any more than a brushstroke on a painting, or the lay of a mountain range is rational or irrational. They simply are.

If the basis of your engagement with a game is "it's like ..." rules must be rational to justify their existence.

This explains the very awkward conversations about Thousand Kings with B&P, where they seemed to feel, constantly, as if they were "cheating."

It goes like this.

1) Consider a hypothetical world in which there is a study that conclusively proves that certain aspects of religious practice, or the practice of particular religion, has an immediate benefit to your health. (I'm aware that such studies exist in the real world, but they're flawed. I'm asking you to consider one that, to your eyes, is conclusive.)

a) Okay -> Go to 2.
b) I would never find such studies conclusive, regardless of the methodology or repeated results -> Go to END.
c) I cannot imagine such a world -> Go to END.

2) Now you've imagined this world. Would you take up that religious practice?

a) No, it's a bunch of superstition -> Go to END.
b) No, I barely even eat right anyway -> Go to 3.
c) Yes, of course -> Go to 3.

3) Consider yourself/someone else who purported to be an atheist, but took up this practice. Are they still an atheist?

a) No, duh -> Go to 4
b) Yes, duh -> Go to 4
c) Maybe, it's complicated -> Go to 4

4) Do you consider them more or less rational?

a) Yes, they're helping their health -> Go to End
b) No, they're practicing a superstition -> Go to End
c) Huh. -> Go to End

End) Huh. Isn't that ... interesting?